Legal Opinion

Harvey v. DeWeill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 20, 1960No. 38385PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Judge.

The bill of exceptions assigns as one error the trial court’s overruling of the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. “As we understand the opinion in the case of Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Brackin, 215 Ga. 225 (109 S. E. 2d 782), the Supreme Court held in substance that the purpose of the provision for judgments notwithstanding verdicts is to bring an end to litigation where under the pleadings and evidence the verdict for the party moving for such a judgment is demanded as a matter of law.” Quaker City Life Ins. Co. v. Sutson, 102 Ga. App. 53 (115 S. E. 2d 699). We…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Andrews & Co. v. KinselSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  2. Napier v. StrongCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  3. Henderson v. Dade Coal Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  4. Haiman & Brother v. Moses & GerrardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1869
  5. Rahmel v. LehndorffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Thomas v. BarnettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  2. Veterans Organization of Fort Oglethorpe, Ga., Inc. v. PotterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  3. McElroy v. Williams Bros. Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
  4. Greenbaum v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  5. Barrow v. JamesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API